The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 16-plate coupé from a dealership in January 2019. After a year or so of owning the vehicle, there were problems with the sensor, exhaust bracket, tyres, brake pads, brake pedal, horn, heater motor, resistor, sill plate and the electric window. I do not think that the car is of satisfactory quality considering all the problems I have experienced with it.
Furthermore, this car was previously owned by a leasing company and the dealership did not inform me about this when I had purchased it from them. This leads me to believe that the vehicle could have been abused by multiple drivers, and I do not believe that the business had fully inspected my car before purchase, which is why there are so many issues with it.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to buy the vehicle back from me at a fair price, which would include my costs of £1400, or to give me a 12-month extended warranty on the car, as I’ve lost all confidence in it.”
The accredited business’ response:
- When the customer purchased the used car from us, it had 22,763 miles on the clock. Prior to selling the car, we had it serviced at one of our branches in October 2018, and it had a further check when it arrived at this dealership in December 2018. A repair under the warranty was carried out three days before the customer purchased the vehicle. Based on this, we had completed all the necessary checks on the car to ensure it was satisfactory quality at the point of sale.
- We dispute the fact that the car was previously owned by a leasing company. However, under the rules of the General Data Protection Regulations and the Data Protection Act 2018, we are not at liberty to disclose the identity of the previous owner to The Motor Ombudsman. The customer will be aware of who the previous owner was as it is available on the V5 (logbook) document.
- On the issue of the faults stated by the consumer, we do accept that there are some parts which might require replacement, but these are wear and tear items.
- Overall, we believe we have done nothing wrong, and the customer had the car serviced nine months after purchase, and did not raise any issues with the vehicle at that time. It was only 12 months after purchase that the issues were brought to our attention.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator said that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that the dealership had sold a vehicle which was not of satisfactory quality. It was also down to the customer to show the dealership had withheld material information at the point of sale that could have impacted their purchasing decision.
- The adjudicator also noted that there was no evidence supplied by the consumer to support their assertion that the car was previously owned by a lease company, which meant that, on the balance of probabilities, the business had not withheld information from the customer.
- On the issue of satisfactory quality, the adjudicator could not identify any documented or technical evidence of the faults that were alleged by the consumer.
- The adjudicator concluded by explaining that they were not expressly disputing the truthfulness of what the consumer had said regarding the faults with their vehicle. The adjudicator had also considered the representations from the dealership that they were not notified about the faults during the service nine months after the customer bought the vehicle.
- In this case, the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that there were faults with the vehicle. From an evidential perspective, more information would be needed to show that there were indeed faults with the car to constitute comprise a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code.
- Based on the evidence provided, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
- Neither the dealership nor the consumer responded to the adjudicator’s decision within the allocated timeframe. The case was therefore closed.
